[Bug tree-optimization/66729] Segfault starting with r224967

2015-07-05 Thread rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolutio

[Bug tree-optimization/66729] Segfault starting with r224967

2015-07-04 Thread rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729 --- Comment #9 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Turns out to be a linker bug that is still present in binutils mainline. I'm testing a patch.

[Bug tree-optimization/66729] Segfault starting with r224967

2015-07-03 Thread rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729 --- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #7) > (gdb) print code > $3 = ADDR_EXPR > (gdb) print tclass > $4 = 1969711199 Er, to be clear, this was part _after_ typing "next". Guess I sho

[Bug tree-optimization/66729] Segfault starting with r224967

2015-07-03 Thread rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729 --- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Pat Haugen from comment #6) > (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #4) > > > > Hmm, bootstrap succeeded for me on gcc110. I used r225278, but I don't > > think anything

[Bug tree-optimization/66729] Segfault starting with r224967

2015-07-02 Thread pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729 --- Comment #6 from Pat Haugen --- (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #4) > > Hmm, bootstrap succeeded for me on gcc110. I used r225278, but I don't > think anything significant changed between the two. Mike Meissner and I ran vari

[Bug tree-optimization/66729] Segfault starting with r224967

2015-07-02 Thread meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug tree-optimization/66729] Segfault starting with r224967

2015-07-01 Thread rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729 --- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Pat Haugen from comment #3) > (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #2) > > (In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #1) > > > Is this the bootstrap failure that Segher tr

[Bug tree-optimization/66729] Segfault starting with r224967

2015-07-01 Thread pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729 --- Comment #3 from Pat Haugen --- (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #2) > (In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #1) > > Is this the bootstrap failure that Segher tracked to Richard Sandiford? > > Richard already posted a patch.

[Bug tree-optimization/66729] Segfault starting with r224967

2015-07-01 Thread rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed

[Bug tree-optimization/66729] Segfault starting with r224967

2015-07-01 Thread dje at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729 --- Comment #1 from David Edelsohn --- Is this the bootstrap failure that Segher tracked to Richard Sandiford? Richard already posted a patch.